Brian, have you tried this stuff without any filters? I ask, because I keep feeling that there's something rich but flat about the output that I see in these pictures; in 'wet' terms, as if they were being printed on not quite a hard enough grade of paper. But when I translate that into what I'd expect going up a grade, I feel that that wouldn't do it either. In other words, it doesn't feel quite as much a matter of contrast as of something else, on which I can't lay finger... disturbing.

Hi,The latest issue of LFI has an article on the Monocrom and how its 'panchromatic' sensor varies from panchromatic film responses,, and focus issues when attaching filters, a chart shows that the orange filter causes some back focus... anyway, an interesting read for anyone owning or thinking of purchasing a Monocrom.Jean-Michel

Brian, have you tried this stuff without any filters? I ask, because I keep feeling that there's something rich but flat about the output that I see in these pictures; in 'wet' terms, as if they were being printed on not quite a hard enough grade of paper. But when I translate that into what I'd expect going up a grade, I feel that that wouldn't do it either. In other words, it doesn't feel quite as much a matter of contrast as of something else, on which I can't lay finger... disturbing.

Rob C

I used to shoot Panatomic-X, developed in Microdol. Tended to go with lower contrast images.

More with the Modern 50/1.5 Nokton, Schneider UV filter only. Same as used on postings in the previous page. So far I've run lenses from the uncoated 1936 Sonnar through to the aspherical 50/1.5 Nokton. All of the images shown are straight LR3 exports to JPEG, no tweeking on my part. It's basically what the sensor captured, scaled to JPEG.

Digital has a "linear response" to light, film has a heel and toe- linear response for the mid-range of the exposure. The original Twain drivers for the Kodak DCS cameras applied a curve to the intensity value range to simulate the response of film. I might try the same thing.

Your shot of the little girl, on film, answers the question I had; it's just the way you like to print.

For my tastes, it's too flat (the girl image) and does remind me a little of my own work during the 50s with both Ilford Pan F and Kodak's Panatomic X. I used to use Unitol at that time (my amateur status) and that was driven by one-shot economy - I think it was used 1:20 or something like that - and the fact that I knew no better: the few guys I knew who also had a photo-interest were equally obsessed with not seeing grain. Later, I came to realise that keeping developer in a bottle for a long time - inevitable using 1:20 and working on a tiny budget, doesn't lead to consistent results! I ended up using D76 1+1 for everything, once I turned pro, because of the rapid use of the chemicals and the fact that it worked very well on the films I then used, FP3, FP4, HP3, HP4 and TXP 120 (the latter only on 120 format because I disliked Kodak on 35mm b/w). I never went back to slow films like the 'F or 'X because I discovered that grain can be a real plus in a suitable print. Shake is more intrusive than grain, too.Wish I had a Leica, but it would be a 9. Once you have the choice of both colour and b/w on the same shot (a major benefit of digital), it seems pointless to me to sacrifice one of the options. In any case, it's the thinking before the exposure that decides whether the image will work better in colour or b/white.

I started with digital in 1981, scientific/technical applications. All custom stuff. First digitized film in 1979. "Scanning Densitometer", filled a room. The end result was to produce "radiometrically calibrated data", so a continuous tone, filled histogram, was important. It probably carried over to my personal photography.

Boosting contrast is easy to do digital, simple apply a curve in photoshop. Working with an image with a fully populated histogram should yield best results. Once I get a good feel for the camera, lens, and filter combinations- I will try that out.

Yes, and the photographs are even more interesting. Every one of them displays the same 'look' that I see in Brian's pictures, and for my money, it is not the same as film b/white at all. Yes, it is quite lovely, but it isn't the same: there is something missing and something else added. Frankly, I think that the look from Nikon digital capture through PS is closer to b/white wet photography in its sense of grey scales. All of the Leica MM things look fiercely crisp but yet too soft, and it isn't really even a matter of contrast, because there's plenty of that in the images and as anyone knows, you can knock it up at any time. There is something else going on.

Perhaps it looks as if parts of the negative, had it been on film, and such a phenomenon possible, are underexposed yet other parts are quite normal. The blacks look wrong.

Frankly, I believe that you would have had to have done a helluva lot of b/white wet printing over many years to grasp at once - probably see at once - what I'm trying to explain via the woeful poverty of words to describe art.

I wouldn't buy, even if I could, which I can but can't justify to myself; I'd pass.

Hi Rob,From everything I have read it appears that using the MM throws quite a curve at photographers who come for film as much as to those who come from rgb digital. I have yet to see an actual print from an MM, LFI printed a portfolio from Jacob Aue Sobol that was quite interesting but which definitely was not meant to showcase subtleties of tone rendition!

As with any other photographic process I am sure that one can produce exquisite prints from the MM, which would stand on their own and need not be compared to other images of the same subject. Does one compare a gum print to a Cibachrome? [As an aside, I do find that many people fixate on a single portion of our craft to define quality, especially cameras, and basically hope for the best output as offered up by Nikon, Canon, Leica, ...] Again, only from what I read, the MM does not and does not attempt to duplicate film -- the spectral response is different, as were the differences in film emulsions.

For now, I am most happy with my b&w and colour prints from my M9, older lenses, processed in LR and perhaps PS, printed with Epson printers on Epson and Canson papers ... And for some reason or other i seem to be happier with b&w images made with the M( than those made with my Canon 5d2 or my partner's GH2.

I have used digital imaging sensors for over 30 years, and film for 50. I will never try to make digital look like film. If I want a film look, will load up the Leica M3 or Nikon SP.

There seems to be some trendy drive to make digital look like film, and to exaggerate the features of film to set it apart from digital.

I shot much more Panatomic-X than Tri-X. Preferred a smooth tonal range. Never cared for just "black and white" when I could get all of the shades in between. A lot of the black and white images these days remind me of printing Kodacolor negatives on Polycontrast RC. I did that once in High-School. Did not like it.

I have used digital imaging sensors for over 30 years, and film for 50. I will never try to make digital look like film. If I want a film look, will load up the Leica M3 or Nikon SP.

There seems to be some trendy drive to make digital look like film, and to exaggerate the features of film to set it apart from digital.

I shot much more Panatomic-X than Tri-X. Preferred a smooth tonal range. Never cared for just "black and white" when I could get all of the shades in between. A lot of the black and white images these days remind me of printing Kodacolor negatives on Polycontrast RC. I did that once in High-School. Did not like it.

Those RC papers were what ended my printing life. Living on an island without a great deal of water to waste, I decided to avoid normal bromide paper and save the planet by using short-wash RC. I hated it. There is nothing like a Kodak (or Ilford) WSG double-weight print with a faultless glaze.

I don't see any reason why the standards of image printing should be different for the two media: they both come from cameras, and their objective is to provide a 2D representation of the subject however the snapper wants it to appear. I don't understand why it's 'trendy' to want to maximise the quality of that print - and if digital can't match film in that respect, then should one simply give up or cheat the issue by saying no, we march to a different visual drum because the new drummer can't keep the beat alive? It's not as if we are trying to dance a different dance - it's the same old dance, and getting that right is difficult enough without throwing out the metronome because it tells an unpalatable truth about our new favourite band!

Trendy- Poladroids. I'll never understand that one. Adding fake grain to a digital image- I spent a lot of time removing effects of grain after digitizing film. On a supercomputer.

Looking at older books on photography, lower contrast, fine grain, full tonal range- the accepted standard. Coarse grain, limited tonal range- when you had to push film because of lack of light. Special effects such as solarization- effects that you can achieve with film "naturally", "were in" in the 70s, don't see much of that. Must be "out".

For me: the M Monochrom delivers. In terms of digital cameras, the CCD has the best uniformity of any commercial camera that I've used. If Leica yanks the IR absorbing glass out of it, sells an M Infrared, I'll buy a couple for work.